What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
282 Comments
- cmiller1, on 10/11/2007, -21/+217Let's get these monsters out of office so I no longer have to feel ashamed to be an American.
- cmiller1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+150It's too bad the majority of the document has been redacted.
- canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -21/+79is this really illegal? although i find the official guidelines of organizing 'fake' anti-demonstrator groups a bit unsettling, is anything in here really illegal? or even worthy of such an inflammatory title?
- mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -13/+63@canewediggit
uuumm...its essentially censorship of citizens views, and spreding propaganda by setting up groups to counter such protesters by chanting 'USA!USA!'. its spreading disinformation and should be brought to light at the very least. i dont know if thats actually illegal, but its good the ACLU is bringing this to light so people know that alot of these 'Bush supporter' groups are really just people being paid to make Bush look good. - duckrank, on 10/11/2007, -9/+57Look up Redaction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction
It's only used to remove irrelevant information to the case at hand. For a document such as this that outlines the procedures of the President at public events, the redacted statements may deal with his personal security. It's understandable that those statements would be removed.
While it is possible that they decided to remove relevant information, I doubt it. The document is fairly self incriminating in its current form. - codegeek2004, on 10/11/2007, -3/+47I second that motion
- flernk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+46The money line:
"On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken IMMEDIATELY to minimize the demonstrator's effect."
Yeah, we wouldn't want the American public to be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. For heaven's sake, just imagine what would happen if crowds were allowed to put forth a group opinion that got media attention! *cough*BostonTeaParty*cough* - crashbang, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44Well I think [redacted] and further more I[redacted] and in conclusion [redacted] off.
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43Does it seriously count as releasing a document if it's all blank?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
- knobidy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Motion has been seconded, all in favor?
- Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Aye
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28Motion passed. We no long recognize the authority of George W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney or the administration employed by the current executive branch of the US federal government.
- canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30jfk was killed by aliens
- DubbedOver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22To codegeek2004, Eivo and zephc - Gentleman, I would like to make a proposal that will help you further your already outstanding careers. I will give you all $250,000 each toward your campaign if you reject this motion. I hope you understand that keeping quiet is an important aspect as the public is not always acting in it's best interest.
(don't you wish all lobbyist's could be dugg down like I will be?). - noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25The parts they left are bad enough. I'm usually a bit more skeptical but it is clear now, this is no longer a democracy. If you do not agree with this government, you are not to be heard.
- melvs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20The parts left alone are more then enough to show a direct violation of our 1st amendment rights, with no doubt this is a a figurative '*****' being taken on our countries principles.
- reed311, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23It's ok, he'll just pardon whoever made the manual. Problem solved.
- Zaeyde, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23And this was only done in 2002.
Imagine what has evolved from this. - fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22Ya know... a performance in a privately owned stadium isn't quite the same thing as a visit by a public official to a public place.
- vlekk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23I'm taking a stand...anything with "Title says it all." in the description now gets buried.
- echinda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19The part that the ACLU alleges is illegal is the fact that dissent is "cleansed" from a public space. In their words:
"When taxpayers foot the bill for a public event, the president does not have the right to use a partisan litmus test to stack the audience with his political supporters."
Link to ACLU press release: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html - halavais, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Um, that's just silly. Documents are regularly over-redacted. There is a long history of court cases over redaction and FOI.
- JohnnyMi25, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22Hell I'm ashamed to be your neighbor (to the north)
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17that argument would make sense in the democratic republic of U2, but a concert isn't the same. protest and dissent are what keeps a government working for the people instead of the other way around. it's what this country was founded on.
- bongo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17At the very least, it's extremely unethical. But entirely unsurprising at the same time.
- ncr100, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Yeah it's illegal to suppress free speech in a publicly funded non-electoral venue. Wearing anti bush t-shirts is reason enough for staffers to get the police to arrest somebody according to the manual.
- stints, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15We should have something similar to the million man march against Bush, lets see them do anything about that.
now how to get that organized? any thoughts? - UglieJosh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Yea, Stints, the key is someone actually having the guts to stand up and get the thing in motion.
I'm all for joining the revolution, but the men who lead fights for freedom in this country, always seem to get assassinated. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13does this mean you give a crap?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You're wrong. Shut up. - UtahApocalyse, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16So I guess we now know who the 23% are that still support bush..... his paid for stooges.
- Surreal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Perhaps you should read it again, they may be ensuring that no physical harm comes to you, but not "freedoms" as you state. They are trying to instead disrupt people's constitutional right to assembly and protest.
- mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11its called propaganda comrade.
- JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Wow! You understand that this is not a private company right? You understand that the president is a SERVANT of the people right?
- mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13it'd be great if the citizens could do whatever they want...
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11check the 1st amendment, the right to peaceably assembly.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8USA LLC!
- DiggDuggDugged, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Great to see that they put more thought and effort into this document than into the pre- and post-war planning for Afghanistan and Iraq. Priorities, priorities...
- NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9How move the booze and coke around.
- consonance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8[EXPLETIVE DELETED] Bush.
- oreo2123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7ROFL...you are my new favorite person...I guess all I can say is: ditto.
Oh and, that bridge is in good condition, right? - antineocon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13This is nuts, can't say i'm surprised though. This doesn't seem right. We are we going to do something?
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8the address book of the dc madam.
- DoctaStooge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Actually, eyefork, yes, I believe that I have the right to do whatever I damn well please to secure my rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," - Deceleration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm - faskippy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Hey, I have this bridge for sale... If you think it is only used to remove IRRELEVANT information, you are as gullible as they come. Sure, they wouldn't publish things that deal with his personal security. But I doubt that there would be a need to discuss that in this type of document anyway, other than to say, oh, something like, cooperate fully with secret service, cause his security is THEIR job. Get it?
- siszam, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15The people who replace Bush will simply pick up where he left off. Once you lose freedoms you rarely get them back. Both sides have agendas and they work together. The Dems didn't end the war did they? The Republicans haven't secured the border have they? All the same.
- sh0k, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12It would not be so bad if this were, say, a memo from Rush Limbaugh to his friends in anticipation of a rally. But a government document that lays out methods of Free Speech suppression, as well as calling for roaming groups of "young/college republicans" to harass demonstrators?
***** it, I'm joining the SDS. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9these events are paid for with tax payer dollars. they are public events. the 1st amendment isn't just about free speech, it's also about assembly. your argument that this is just about hecklers is *****. the document talks about how to disperse and hide protests even outside the event, to make sure it's not seen by the media. basically they want to use our tax dollars to further their propaganda and don't want americans to get in the way of it.
- UglieJosh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yes, we get it already. There are other countries that have it worse than us. There are countries that illegally jail you and censor you if you have opposing views. Oh, wait, that is us.
So, your point is that other countries kill you for things like this, rather than jail you?
Well, a great man once said "live free or die." -
Show 51 - 100 of 283 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is